AC-2024-LON-0001595 - [2025] EWHC 2182 (Admin)

Fecha: 29-Ago-2025

Agreed List of Issues

Agreed List of Issues

56.

The parties have helpfully agreed a list of issues to be determined. Re-ordering these issues slightly to correlate with the Grounds as set out in the Claimant’s Skeleton Argument and its oral submissions, the issues are as follows:

57.

Amenability / Scope of Judicial Review:

Are the decisions under challenge amenable to judicial review on any or all of the grounds pleaded by the Claimant?

ii)

In light of the decision as to amenability, does the Claimant have an alternative remedy such that the application for judicial review should be dismissed?

58.

Subject to these points:

Ground 1 – Breach of Natural Justice:

Was there unlawful procedural unfairness by a failure to provide the Claimant with an opportunity, prior to the decisions, to respond to representations by third parties: (i) in respect of the Designation Decision; and (ii) in respect of the Clause 7.7(B) Decision?

ii)

Ground 2 – Tameside duty:

In respect of the Tameside (duty of inquiry) challenge to the Designation Decision:

is the ground as now pursued in the skeleton argument properly pleaded and, if not, should the ground be excluded from consideration (subject to any application for permission to amend)?

ii)

Subject to the above, was there a breach of the Tameside duty by failing to request that Rydon provide further documents?

iii)

Ground 3 – Failure to take into account material considerations:

Was there an unlawful failure to take into account material considerations:

in respect of the Designation Decision; and

ii)

in respect of the Clause 7.7(B) Decision?

Was it irrational to take into account the risk of delay in respect of the Clause 7.7(B) Decision so as to render that Decision unlawful?

iv)

Ground 4 – Predetermination:

Would a fair-minded and informed observer conclude that the Defendant had ‘predetermined’ either:

the Designation Decision;

ii)

the Clause 7.7(B) Decision; or

iii)

the Clause 13.2 Decision (transfer)?

Ground 5 – Improper Motive:

In respect of the ‘improper motive’ challenge to the three decisions:

is the ground as now pursued in in [99(1)] of the Claimant’s Skeleton Argument (improper motive as being contrary to the RAS Regulations) properly pleaded and, if not, should the point be excluded from consideration (subject to any application for permission to amend)?

ii)

Subject to the above, did the Defendant make any of the three decisions under challenge for an ‘improper motive’?

vi)

Ground 6 – Wednesbury Irrationality / failure to provide reasons:

Were any of the three decisions under challenge irrational so as to render them unlawful?

Were adequate reasons given for the Designation Decision (Ground 1(c))?

59.

Section 31(2A) of the Supreme Court Act 1981:

But for any public law error found by the Court, is it highly likely that the same decisions would have been made?

60.

I shall deal with each of these issues / grounds in turn.